The exclusion of exculpatory evidence in a criminal trial does not violate the constitutional right to present a defense and is not constitutionally arbitrary or disproportionate if the excluded evidence either is immaterial or has very little or no probative value.

United States v. Newton, 326 F.3d 253, 259-260 (1st Cir. 2003) (upholding trial court's admission of co-conspirator's after-the-fact description and comments about the Isla Verde murders because "requirements....A statement falls within the hearsay exemption for statements of co-conspirators only if the statement was made in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Fed. R. Evid. 803(3) ("A statement of the declarant's then existing state of mind, emotion, sensation, or physical condition (such as intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain, and bodily health), but not including a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed unless it relates to the execution,...Federal Rule of Evidence 803(3) or a comparable State rule creates a hearsay exception for a statement by a declarant setting forth the declarant's perception of the declarant's internal state (including mental states, bodily conditions, feelings, motives, designs, and intentions) at the time the declarant makes the statement.

United States v. Geston, 299 F.3d 1130, 1137-1138 (9th Cir. 2002) ("Rule 404(a) provides that '[e]vidence of a person's character or a trait of character is not admissible for the purpose of proving action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion....' However, Rule 404(a)(2) allows admission of...When an exception makes the victim's character admissible, the testimony of a witness on direct examination about the victim's character must take the form of opinion or reputation and it cannot take the form of specific instances of victim's conduct.